GANGA VISHNU DIWAKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issue of a direction to the respondents, to allow the petitioner, to change the speciality of Tuberculosis and Chest-Diseases (TB and CD), allotted to him in MD-Course, to General Medicine, or to any other speciality which has the recognition of the Medical Council of India, in accordance with the preference given by him in his application form of PG-Course.

(2.) The petitioner passed his MBBS Examination in the year 1988, and he completed his internship in the year 1989. On the recommendation of the Central PC Admission Board, constituted under Ordinance 278-E of the University of Rajasthan, the petitioner was allotted the speciality of TB and CD, in the MD-Course. The petitioner joined the MD-Course in the speciality of TB and CD, in the RNT Medical College, Udaipur, on 17th Jan., 1991 as First Year Resident under the Three Year Residency Programme, and since then he has been continuing in the said speciality. The petitioner has stated that in his application-form for PG-Course, he had shown his preferences in the following order : (i) Orthopaediatrics. (ii) Paediatrics. (iii) General Medicine. (iv) Skin and Venereal Diseases. (v) Tuberculosis and Chest Diseases. The petitioner was not informed that the PG- Degree in the speciality of TB and CD, from RNT Medical College, Udaipur, had no recognition by the Medical Council of India; and the petitioner had also no knowledge about it. It is alleged that the admission of the petitioner to the MD Degree Course in TB and CD, in RNT Medical College, Udaipur, which is not recognized for the purpose of conferment of degree in the said speciality, would not be useful to the petitioner in his service and educational career. On this basis, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition, seeking the above-mentioned directions against the respondents.

(3.) This writ petition was admitted on 9/07/1991. On that date, Mr. M.K. Kaushik, Deputy Government Advocate, was present, and time was granted to him, to file reply to the writ petition within three weeks; and the writ petition was ordered to be listed on 29th Aug., '91. No reply to the writ petition till that date was filed by the respondents. Arguments were, therefore, heard on the writ petition, and the case was kept reserved for orders. However, on 9th Sept., 91, a reply to the writ petition was presented in the registry, on behalf of the respondents. The writ petition was, on oral request made on behalf of the respondents, listed for orders. The reply presented by the respondents was allowed to be taken on record. Further arguments were also heard.